[b112]

TV was seen as a great learning tool in the day.

The idea that you could cheaply and affordably replay lectures with video, demonstrate concepts visually, show foreign lands and peoples, all with low cost of production was captivating to many.

Computers were initially seen by educators as a path to interactive TV. Making it easy to find video info, and to index it, even rotate images (repair videos and part assemble for example).

Point is, TV was seen a more than entertainment, it was a tool that could be employed to teach. Computers more so.

Then the Internet came, and it was at first mostly educational, intellectual. Sort of the inverse of what it is now.

Once everything exploded, it became entertainment primarily. Sort of like TV. The educational aspect is there, but muted.

[lotsofpulp]

Obtaining information from potentially interactive websites is better in every way than via TV. It’s obsolete technology.

Therefore, the BBC needs to transition to a website that happens to send signals out via TV for legacy users, but primarily, it’s competing with TikTok/Youtube/Khan Academy/Instagram/Whatsapp/Reddit/Disney/Comcast/Netflix/Sony/WarnerBros Discovery/etc. They all compete with each other, globally.

BBC sells minutes of entertainment/education/etc, and there are a fixed number of minutes in a day.

[b112]

I think yes, but no. By this I mean, never compete directly with something that you cannot defeat. The BBC will never be Youtube, TikTok and the like. Just imaging what degree of state censorship will be required. Imagine all the content that will not be acceptable for a BBC Youtube like channel.

So any open platform will almost surely be a no-win for them. (I don't see a lot of content yet from youtube, and none from tiktok which isn't submitted by endusers... even if they're streamers)

The BBC can compete with some of the rest. But if you look at the studios you list, those all make longer, non-user submitted content. The BBC surely can compete here. And it has in the past.

There's no reason it can't stream, as you say.

Note that my prior post was all about "the way it was" and why we're here now. Why traditional broadcasters from the 70s through to the early 2000s behaved as they did. What they were thinking during those times.

But outside of that, websites aren't better at some things. If they were, then we wouldn't be watching full screen video. There's something to be said for curated, created, static content in episodic format.

Maybe you meant 'streaming' instead of 'websites' too?